The goal of this research project is to discover as much as possible about the nature of the attributional processes involved in describing oneself and others. By applying rigorous psychometric standards to some important attributional hypotheses, hypotheses that have typically been tested but casually heretofore, we seek to (a) replicate and extend the findings of Goldberg (in press) by employing a more differentiated response format, a format that permits the decomposition of the "situational" response into components representing Neutrality, Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Situationality; (b) investigate these four response processes as a function of the attributor's knowledge of, and evaluation of, differing types of targets; (c) evaluate the theoretically engaging interaction hypothesis of Monson and Snyder (1977), which relates the differential situational attributions of actors and observers to the degree of situational control in the behaviors involved; (d) enhance our understanding of some of the processes involved in extremeness response style by relating individual differences in general extremeness of attribution to the use of the four response components; (e) discover the reliability and generality of a new attributional response bias, the differential attribution of trait descriptive terms to oneself as compared to a well-liked other; (f) investigate discrepancies between self and peer-rated attributions, relating such discrepanies both to personality characteristics of the target self and to the specific content of the trait descriptive terms; and (g) execute a methodologically rigorous replication and extension of the oft-cited study by Bem and Allen (1974) on individual differences in cross-situational consistency.